L

At the most recent Planning Commission meeting, Director of Planning and Development for the city, Sam Luthi, offered several changes in the current Sign Ordinance.  In the staff report to the Planning Commissioners, Luthi said this was an effort to make the ordinance fully-legal and enforceable.

Luthi asked the commissioners to consider, “Signs of all types, except those for special events as approved by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, are prohibited in the city’s right-of-ways. Feather signs and other nuisance temporary signs have been prohibited in the city of Tullahoma.”

At the public comment portion of the meeting, local realtor Joe Orr said, “This issue comes up every five or ten years. Signage is very important as far as marketing goes. We work to limit the amount and size of the signs we place and how long we place auction signs.”

The proposal by Luthi sparked considerable debate among the commissioners. 

Luthi emphasized the city cannot allow some signs and not allow others. “It is illegal to allow or not allow signs based on the content or message on the signs.”

Commissioners then debated if it was possible to allow temporary signage based on the business location, not the message on the sign and if it was possible to allow signs to be placed by Tullahoma businesses who have a Tullahoma business license.

After the discussion, the commissioners decided to table the proposed changes to the sign ordinance to a future meeting.

The board of mayor and aldermen also discussed the sign ordinance at their recent meeting. City Administrator Jason Quick pointed out that an updated sign ordinance has been on the “to do list” for some time.

“We presently have an ordinance that prohibits the majority of signs in the right-of-way,” Luthi said, noting the content of signs is presently not something the city is regulating. “We can’t regulate what’s on the face of the sign or the words that are on them, except for the police department (under the vulgarity law). Because of that we are in a difficult area of enforcement.”

Mayor Lynn Sebourn questioned if enforcing a sign rule would alienate businesses. “Could we come up with a system that you would have to have a business license or you’d have to buy a permit to put up temporary signs,” the mayor asked. “That would hopefully discourage the fly-by-night people.”

Luthi said one issue he also see is the flag-type, animated signs that wave in the wind. Those have generated lots of complaints and he said he has counted over 250 such signs around town.

Signs for special events are excluded by the planned update in the sign ordinance.

The debate to eliminate the temporary signs often found on street corners across Tullahoma sparked considerable debate on-line as well.  Citizens were clearly split on the proposal when asked for their takes on the issue.

Tammy Jones Cunningham said, “NO signs of any kind.  They make our town look trashy.”

Gary Kidd offered, “If it comes down to it, I think with social media that the realtors will survive.  The realtors are just old-school and too used to doing it one way, so I see their objections to change.”

Rodney Duncan offered a different perspective, “Temporary signs should be allowed, but must be marked with the name of the person putting it out, phone number of the person putting it out, and the date they put it out.”

Vollie Stone didn’t hold back, “It is not a RIGHT for people to put their ugly signs on public/city property.  It makes Tullahoma look like a trashy, hick town.”

Joe Abraham agreed, “I think they junk up the look of the town.  I say get rid of them all together.”

Robert Hayes disagreed, “I like the signs; they provide valuable information, just limit the time they can be displayed.  Many businesses need them to survive.”

Catherine Chappell Yates opined, “I can understand the consideration for some regulation.  I could see how areas can become a cluttered eyesore with so many signs.  I can see it being a safety hazard if any signs affect the visibility of drivers.”

Kathleen Kaferle said, “I think it helps small businesses to be able to advertise with these local signs, but I understand the issue of them getting junky after a while.”

John Greenwood offered, “I vote we remove all the junky signs.”

Darrell Duer said, “How about letting people advertise.  Stay out of their way and leave them alone.  Times are already hard enough.”

Former alderman Greg Sandlin agreed, “My vote – let the signs stay.”

Former alderman Daniel Berry did his research, “The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2015 in ‘Reed v Town of Gilbert’ that cities can’t regulate signs on their message.  Realtors only or locals only is flat out unconstitutional and our own city attorney and Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) consultant told the Planning Commission that two years ago.”